Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Gallatin, and to the convention respecting the territory west of the Rocky Mountains. Lord Aberdeen here inquired whether I could enter into a similar arrangement with regard to the country now under consideration. I observed that my remark had been made merely by way of illustration; that I had, by order of the president, made a demand for the redress of a specific injury committed on an American citizen, and had further required that this country should abstain from the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction in a territory which we maintained belonged to the United States; that no answer had been returned to my reclamations; and that, therefore, in no event, could a new proposition be expected from me; that it would be compe. tent for him, in replying to my note, to make any offer or suggestion he might think fit as to the best mode of obviating inconveniences from adisputed title, till the judgment of the king of the Netherlands is obtained; and that his proposals, if it should not be in my power to accept them, would be transmitted to my government, who would undoubtedly give them a respectful consideration.

The other topic on which lord Aberdeen touched, gave rise to a more extended discussion. Ta king the same view as Mr. Vaughan had done in his correspondence with you, he maintained that, whatever might be the true boundary, the jurisdiction over the disputed territory remained with Great Britain, till our title was completed by an absolute delivery of posses. sion; observing, that this was the rule of the law of nations in all cases of cession.

I answered, that the principle for

which he contended, and with which I was acquainted, was adopt. ed for the regulation of a third power, or of individuals, in order to prevent the inconvenience which would result in an established community, from doubts existing as to the period when a transfer of authority took place, and a new set of duties and obligations commenced; that in no case could one of the contracting parties reply to the complaint of the exercise of jurisdiction in the territory, which the other regarded as ceded to it, the fact that it had never delivered up the possession. If it has a claim of right, on that right, and not on the possession, must it support it. self. If otherwise, as the withholding of the possession after its being demanded, is per se, a continued injury, to adduce it, would be to rely on one's own wrong. I further remarked that, even considering the treaty of 1783 as one of cession, every delivery has taken place of which the subject matter was susceptible. now disputed was never held by Great Britain like a town or fortress. The possession in the crown, anterior to the revolution, was only constructive, of which, assuredly, the renunciation in the treaty was fully competent to divest it; that there had been no uninterrupted exercise of any authority by the province of Nova Scotia or New. Brunswick, since the independence of the United States; but that, on the contrary, as had been elsewhere stated, as much at least had been done on our side as on theirs, towards obtaining a title by occu. pancy.

The territory

I then proceeded to say, that I had thought proper to show that, even on the principle assumed by

this government, its claim of exclusive jurisdiction was untenable; but that I totally denied that we held any portion of the territory embraced within the original states as a "grant" or "cession" from a foreign power, in the sense which had been attributed to those terms.

After assimilating the state of things resulting from our revolu. tion, as was done in my official note, to a division of the empire, I remarked that there was nothing in the form of the treaty of peace, or in the circumstances under which it was negotiated, to lead to the conclusion that on it depended our claims to territorial sovereignty. Even anterior to our separation from the mother country, though we acknowledged the authority of the king of Great Britain, we had not acquiesced in a parliamentary right to interfere with our internal regulations; an attempt to assume this power having been, indeed, one of the causes of the war. From the declaration of independence, and long before its recognition by England, we concluded treaties with foreign states, and exercised all the other prerogatives of an established government. I also adverted to the terms, as well of the provisional articles of 1782 as of the definitive treaty of the succeeding year, in both of which the contracting parties treated on the footing of the most perfect equality; the United States being considered in the full possession of the usual attributes of national sovereignty. A reference to the treaties with France and Spain, with respect to Louisiana and Florida, will show that, where real cessions were made, a different language was employed than in that of 1783, where the terms

66

re

linquishes all claims to the govern ment, propriety, and territorial rights," imply a renunciation of what is no longer in possession. Lord Aberdeen here interrupted me, and said that the treaty was in the nature of a grant or cession, because England gave every thing and received nothing. To this I replied, that it was not permited to open a solemn instrument, by which an agreement had been fairly and honestly affected between individuals; much less could it be done in the transactions between states in order to inquire into the consideration mutually given and received, with a view to change its legal character; and that it was, therefore, unnecessary for me to say any thing as to the object which England had in view in saving further war expenditure, securing her remaining provinces, and obtaining the other benefits of peace; and I would only refer to the face of the instrument itself to ascertain its na. ture. If, I added, by tracing the boundaries in the treaty, England ceded to us the territory on one side of the line, as described in the second article, we ceded to her the territory on the other side, on which, indeed, we had, at different periods of the war, more or less pretension. The most correct way, however, of viewing the subject was not to consider that the treaty made grants or cessions to either party, but that the line was indicated, as is expressed in the article itself, to prevent future disputes, a motive which frequently has led to a convention of limits between two governments of equal antiquity.

As, however, lord Aberdeen still intimated that, whatever view other nations might take of the question, it could not be expected that Great

Britain would consider the sovereignty of the United States as existing anterior to 1783, or regard the recognition of independence, so far as territory was concerned, in any other light than a cession, I observed, that, the main question in dispute between the countries having been disposed of, it was desirable that difficulties as to temporary jurisdiction should not be occasioned by the discussion of an abstract proposition. In the inference which it had been attempted to draw from the principle of cession, connected as it was with the character which had been ascribed to the treaty of 1783, I felt confident that my government could not acquiesce. If admitted, it might be construed so as to involve the most monstrous consequences, and perhaps be applied in other cases than in the one under consideration. There was, however, another view of the subject, which I would suggest. The independence of the United States, in general, is not only acknowledged by the treaty, but also that of each state, by name, Massachusetts being enumerated with the others. If we divest the question of its national character, and regard it as a dispute between Maine and New-Brunswick, succeeding to the respective rights of Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, the argument from the principle of cession would operate altogether in our favour; for it can hardly be pretended that, when Nova Scotia, after having been annexed to Massachusetts under the charter of William and Mary, was transferred to a separate provincial govern ment, and subsequently to the French, there was, in either case, any other delivery of possession of the unsettled territory than took

place on the conclusion of our revolutionary war.

I cannot flatter myself that I have been able to change the views of lord Aberdeen, but it is proper for me to add, that he said that he would give to my observations a full consideration, and requested me not to regard what had fallen from him as the final opi. nion of the British government.

I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, sir, your most obe. dient servant,

W. B. LAWRENCE.
HON. HENRY CLAY,
Secretary of State, Washington.

LORD ABERDEEN TO MR. LAWRENCE.

Foreign Office, Aug. 14, 1828.

The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note which Mr. Lawrence, chargé d'affairs of the United States of America, addressed to his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs on the 5th of May, containing representations upon certain occurrences in that district on the north-eastern frontier of the United States, the right of possession of which is now, by mutual agreement of the two countries, and in compliance with the provisions of the treaty of Ghent, referred to the arbitration of a friendly power.

Mr. Lawrence's representations, and the demands founded upon them, may be conveniently divided into two heads.

1st. The representations against the arrest of John Baker, a citizen of the United States, and residing within the said territory, and his removal by the provincial authorities of New-Brunswick to the capital

of that province for trial, on a charge of misdemeanor, and the de. mand for the "liberation of Mr. Baker, and for the granting to him a full indemnity for the wrongs which he has suffered by the seizure of his person within the limits of the state of Maine, and his sub. sequent abduction and confinement in the jail of Frederickton."

2d. The representations against the exercise of jurisdiction by British authorities within the territory in question, and the demand "that the government of New-Brunswick shall cease from the exercise of all and every act of exclusive jurisdiction within the disputed terterritory, until the question of right is settled between the two govern. ments of Great Britain and the United States."

The undersigned deems it to be his duty to remark, in the outset, with reference to the designation which Mr. Lawrence has given to the place wherein John Baker was arrested, as being "within the limits of the state of Maine," and with reference also to the phrase "American territory," applied by Mr. Lawrence in another part of his note, to the district in question, that if the United States consider the tract of country which forms the subject of the arbitration, now in progress, as unquestionably their own, the British government are, on their side, as firmly convinced of the justice of their claim to designate those lands as territory belonging to the crown of Great Britain.

This, however, is not the point for present consideration. The question of sovereignty, which depends upon the definition of the true frontier line between the two

countries, under the treaty of 1783, having been referred, agreeably to the provisions of the treaty of Ghent, to the arbitration of a friendly state, it is a question of actual jurisdiction alone which can now be discussed, without interfering with the province of the arbitrator; and between these questions of sovereignty and the actual exercise of jurisdictiction, the under. signed conceives there is a broad and clear distinction.

With these preliminary observations, the undersigned will proceed to remark upon the first demand made by Mr. Lawrence; and, if it has been a source of regret to the undersigned that the various and pressing calls upon the attention of his majesty's government, at this season of the year, have prevented him from returning an earlier answer to Mr. Lawrence's note addressed to his predecessor, the regret is materially diminished by the consideration that this delay has enabled the undersigned to put Mr. Lawrence in possession of the proceedings on the trial of John Baker, at Frederickton, in New-Bruns. wick, (a copy of which he has now the honour to enclose,) which he feels persuaded will, in conjunction with the remarks which he has to offer upon them, satisfy Mr. Law. rence that the prosecution instituted against John Baker by the go. vernment of New-Brunswick, was rendered indispensably necessary by the acts of that individual; that it has been conducted with a scru. pulous regard to justice; that the sentence which has been passed upon him, is, under all the circumstances of the case, a lenient one; and that, in the whole course of these proceedings, no privilege

which Baker could justly claim under the law of nations, has been violated.

Postponing, for the present, any answer to Mr. Lawrence's remarks on the general question of jurisdiction within the district in which John Baker resided at the period of his arrest, and assuming, in this place, that such jurisdiction did belong to the government of New-Brunswiek, the undersigned will proceed to show, from the his. tory of Baker himself, that the exercise of it, in the particular case of that individual, is singularly free from any possible imputation of hardship or severity.

Mr. Lawrence will see, from the report of Mr. Barrell, the agent specially appointed by the government of the United States to inquire into this transaction, (which report has been officially communicated to his majesty's government, and is doubtless in Mr. Lawrence's possession,) that John Baker, who had, from the year 1816, until 1820, resided in the British provinces of New-Brunswick and Canada, came in the latter year to reside in the Madawasca settlement, where he had joined his brother Nathan, then carrying on trade in connexion with a British merchant of the name of Nevers, established at the capital of New-Brunswick; and that, after the death of his brother, in 1821, Joha Baker continued to occupy the land on which his brother had originally settled, and to carry on the same business as before, under the said Nevers. It further appears, as well from Mr. Barrell's statement, as from the evidence on Baker's trial, that Nathan Baker had, so long ago as the year 1819, formally admitted the jurisdiction of the government of

New-Brunswick over his said possession; that John Baker's partner, Nevers, with Baker's concurrence, applied to the government of New-Brunswick for a grant of the same land, for the benefit of John Baker; that, in 1822, Baker himself applied for and received from the government of New-Bruns. wick the provincial bounty for the cultivation of grain upon that land; and that, so late as the year 1825, he had voluntarily applied to the British authorities for the enforcement of the British laws among the American settlers, both in civil and criminal matters; from all which circumstances, it is manifest that the seditious practices for which Baker was prosecuted, were not committed in ignorance of the au. thority which had uniformly been asserted and exercised by the government of New-Brunswick, and of which he had himself, in common with the other settlers, claimed the benefit and protection.

It must be wholly unnecessary for the undersigned to insist upon the serious nature of the offences themselves, with which John Baker was charged, and of which he was found guilty. The several acts of outrage and sedition proved against him on the trial were such as no government actually exercis. ing jurisdiction, and therefore responsible for the peace and security of the community existing under its protection, could allow to pass unpunished, whether the perpetrators of offences happened to be its own subjects, or aliens settled within its jurisdiction, and therefore owing local and temporary obe. dience to its laws.

Such being the facts more immediately relating to the individual Baker himself, the undersigned

« ПретходнаНастави »